Marriage has long been seen as a cornerstone of the American family and traditional values. However citing several thousand looming divorces within the heterosexual community and the abundance of shotgun weddings without a proper courting period the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the dissolution of the allowance of heterosexual divorce in hopes that many will take the institution more seriously.

The case in question was Blogulburt vs. Nevada. Marius Blogulburt met his wife Miranda Klink at the Circus Circus casino in Las Vegas Nevada. After a night of booze and sex the pair decided to get married at one of the several drive-thru wedding chapels available within the city. After waking up and not realizing they had been hitched the pair went their separate ways. It wasn’t until Blogulburt wanted to marry his longtime girlfriend at home that he soon realized he was married to someone else. The state of Nevada wouldn’t allow a basic annulment, so Blogulburt filed the paperwork to be divorced for a 5th time. The state of Nevada wouldn’t allow a divorce either citing he had “filled his divorce quota”. Blogulburt was not aware of this law and was so outraged he filed a lawsuit against the state citing personal liberty and freedom guaranteed within the Constitution, but the state again ruled against him. Undeterred, Blogulburt soon hired Frank Fontuna, one of the top attorneys in Las Vegas dealing with shotgun wedding and the dissolution of drunken nuptials. Amazingly, Fontuna was able to somehow get Blogulburt’s case heard in front of the Supreme Court in Washington D.C.

All nine Supreme Court Justices upon hearing the case were utterly disgusted, even Justice Scalia. They couldn’t even believe that this case was being brought before the highest court in the land. They decided unanimously to not only order Blogulburt to stay married to his wife, but also that all heterosexual divorce was to be banned nationwide.

Justice Kagan upon hearing the case said, “Marriage in the United States has become a joke. So many fight for the right to be married and have all the equal benefits therein while others stomp all over the institution and abuse the rights they never even had to fight for. In an effort to restore dignity to the institution of marriage it is by the order of this court that marriage is to remain permanent upon signature of the appropriate certificates.”

This decision came as a shock to many who see it as major infringement of personal freedom. Many feel the court should have no right to say if a couple should be married or not, and it is a person’s individual liberty to marry and dissolve marriage as they see fit. It seems people don’t like the government having the right to define marriage, or at least when it directly affects them.